Family Caregiving for Older Disabled People: Relational and Institutional Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The intricacy of gender, moral, relational, financial and housing issues Economically unrational farm business families in Finland A pendular movement between the intergenerational pact and the exhaustion of support networks in Argentina A study of the care-giving role of the sandwich generation in Hong Kong Caregivers, Helpers, and Family: Family Care-giving Research in a Canadian Context Negotiations and room for manoeuvre in caring for an elderly parent Family care-giving when relationships are poor Men, Marriage and Care: Caring for a Partner with MS Mother-Daughter Relationships within the Care Process of Alzheimers Disease: The Daughters Perspective Long-distance Care-giving: Transnational Families and the Provision of Aged Care The reconstitution of need: Home-based care in the wake of Canadian health care restructuring Through Kith and Kin: Supporting the Family Caregiver for the Elderly Extracting the Essence of Formal Care giving: A Comparative Study of Formal Care Givers in English and German Care Homes The value of the work - On Employment for Family Care in Sweden Inter-professional decision making in elderly care: morality, criteria and help allocation Exploring the cultural borderlines of family care-giving in Finland Caregivers and Community Service Non-use in Australia Ethnicity and Care-giving: A case study in Great Britain Index.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".